FOIA Project Annotation: As part of her decision upholding most of the procedural claims made by the CIA in defending itself against policy and practice claims by National Security Counselors, Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that the CIA cannot refuse to respond to a subsequent request merely because it is duplicative of a previous request submitted by the same requester. National Security Counselors had agreed to allow the CIA to combine two previous FOIA requests�"one asking for the initial response letter for 15 FOIA requests from 2008 that were denied because they did not reasonably describe the records sought, the other for the response letters for 290 requests filed in 2008 the agency deemed improper for other reasons. Finding it impossible to determine which records were responsive to which request, NSC filed another request for the 15 requests considered insufficiently specific. Before Howell, the agency argued it was not required to answer questions or to provide redundant records twice to the same requester. Howell disagreed, noting that "the CIA is correct that the FOIA does not obligate agencies to create records or answer questions. The CIA extends this argument too far, however, when it contends that it 'is not obligated to produce redundant records to the same requester.'" Ironically, Howell had ruled the other way in Toensing v. Dept of Justice, 890 F. Supp. 2d 121(D.D.C. 2012), although in a substantially different context. Acknowledging her previous ruling, she explained that "in certain limited factual circumstances, this statement of law by the CIA could be accurate. For example, where a single requester fails to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to certain withheld records, and then files a duplicative FOIA request for the exact same records in order to revive the unexhausted issued for purposes of litigation, the agency is not required to re-review the same records to indulge the requester." Howell observed that "that, however, is not the situation here." She continued, noting that "unlike the situation presented in Toensing, the CIA is not refusing to produce the records sought in [the request] because it does not want to re-review the records and make new withholding determinations. Indeed, the CIA does not indicate that it would need to withhold any information from the fifteen specific records sought in [the request], which appear to consist entirely of routine correspondence from the CIA to FOIA requesters. The FOIA states categorically that, so long as a request for records 'reasonably describes such records' and complies with agency rules regarding the submission of FOIA requests, the agency 'shall make the [requested] records promptly available to any person,' subject, of course, to the exemptions contained in [the statute]. . . [A]bsent some contention that the production of redundant records to the same requester would run afoul of the FOIA by imposing an undue burden upon the CIA or requiring the CIA to create records, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs' claim. . .can go forward. The Court finds nothing in the FOIA that would foreclose an individual from seeking the production of records already disclosed to him, particularly in a situation like the instant action where an individual seeks redundant documents in order to obtain a new piece of information." She pointed out that "in such a situation, the agency is free to charge the requester for the cost of locating and copying the records in accordance with its regulations, and the agency is not necessarily required to reassess any prior withholding determinations regarding the redundant records, but the agency cannot flatly refuse to process the request on the theory that 'the FOIA does not require an agency to indulge a requester who repeatedly seeks the same records.'" Howell also found the CIA had taken too narrow an interpretation of a request for copies of 32 documents currently published in the CIA Records Search Tool. The request also asked the agency to review the documents for full release under FOIA. The agency instead provided copies of the 32 redacted documents. Howell indicated that "the Court, however, cannot conclude that the CIA's interpretation of [the] FOIA request was reasonable as a matter of law." The CIA argued that because the request asked for copies of the attached 32 documents, "it was faced with a clear request for 'copies' of thirty-two documents' listed in the "CREST system."'" But Howell noted that "the CIA gives short shrift, however, to the remaining sentences of the opening paragraph of [the] FOIA request. In particular, the CIA selectively omits the sentence of the FOIA request, which stated that 'records which are currently published in CREST in redacted form should be reviewed for full release under FOIA.'" The agency contended the request was for copies only. Howell disagreed, pointing out that the request clarified what was meant by copies by asking that redacted records be reviewed for full release. Howell observed that "it was unreasonable for the CIA to ignore such clear instructions conveying the intended scope of a FOIA request, at least insofar as those instructions were contained within the four corners of the request itself." Aside from these two defeats, the CIA prevailed on most of the issues before Howell. She agreed with the agency that NSC did not have standing to bring its policy and practice claims because there was no indication they were currently being affected by those policies. Howell observed that NSC's only allegation of harm was that they would continue to make requests to the CIA and would, as a result, be subjected to the challenged practices. But Howell noted that "these general statements about a 'regular' course of conduct and an expressed intention to 'continue to do so in the future' do not establish the same concrete likelihood of injury that emanates from allegations of specific, pending FOIA requests that are likely to be subject to an agency's challenged policies." NSC had failed to appeal three requests, but it argued that since the CIA did not provide it with a volume estimate of the disputed records the agency's denial letter was insufficient and NSC had constructively exhausted its administrative remedies. Howell found that under Oglesby v. Dept of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990), requiring a requester to file an appeal if the agency responded before suit was filed, an agency's obligation was met once it provided a determination letter containing appeals rights. Howell noted that "the FOIA does not tie that obligation to the statute's separate provision dealing with constructive exhaustion." She added that "the Court finds no evidence from the statutory text or case law to suggest that an agency's failure to provide an estimate of the volume of material withheld permits a FOIA requester to invoke constructive exhaustion and forego an administrative appeal before filing a lawsuit." NSC also claimed the agency had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to publish its final rule on the costs incurred as a result of Mandatory Declassification Review requests for notice and comment. The agency previously used the FOIA fee categories in determining potential costs, but in its final rule the agency imposed the same costs on all requesters. Finding this was an interpretive rule not subject to notice and comment requirements, Howell pointed out that "the Final Rule in the instant action does not make it any more costly for non-commercial requesters to secure declassification of information than it does for any other members of the public, and requiring all MDR requesters to pay the same fees in order for the CIA to recoup the costs of searching, reviewing, and duplicating requested material can hardly be called a 'substantive value judgment' under our Circuit's precedents because the classification of requesters has no connection whatsoever to the substance of a request."
Issues: Request - Perfected request

FOIA Project Annotation: Wrapping up most of the remaining outstanding issues in a suit against the CIA brought by National Security Counselors and three other requesters contesting multiple claims made by the CIA, Judge Beryl Howell has ruled in favor of the agency on most counts, but has rejected the agency's position as to others. A primary thread connecting the multiple claims was the plaintiffs' attempts to force the agency to provide more information about how it processes FOIA requests and other related public information requests. While the case is very agency-specific, it raises interesting questions as to how to handle such challenges. Howell first addressed NSC's challenge to the CIA's policy for charging fees for mandatory declassification reviews, a process for requesting the declassification of specific identified records that is included in the Executive Order on Classification. MDRs have become more common with sophisticated requesters seeking discrete documents through an ISCAP review and dissatisfied with the likely results of overcoming an Exemption 1 (national security) claim. The CIA policy required requesters seeking an MDR to commit to paying all applicable fees before proceeding. NSC contended such a policy posed a barrier to public interest groups who might not be able to afford such fees. They asserted that the fee policy violated the Independent Offices Appropriations Act and was thus a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act's arbitrary and capricious standard. Howell found that "in processing a particular MDR request, the CIA performs 'specific services to [a] specific individual or company, namely, the requester," a standard found by the D.C. Circuit to qualify under the IOAA. Howell explained that "where records subject to an MDR request are ultimately released more broadly, the CIA's review of these records is a specific service performed expressly for the individual requester." She also rejected NSC's claim that the fee policy harmed public interest requesters. She pointed out that "even assuming that, as a policy matter, agencies should treat MDR requests and FOIA requests similarly, the plaintiffs point to no statutory or other provision requiring such parity. While both regimes undoubtedly were designed with the public's interest in open and transparent government in mind, Congress saw fit in enacting the FOIA fee provision to provide relief for non-commercial requesters seeking to advance identifiable public interests. By contrast, neither E.O. 13526 nor the implementing NARA regulations require agencies to adopt a parallel fee regime for MDR requests. As a policy matter, such a regime has much to commend it, but imposing such policy, absent any statutory or regulatory mandate to do so, is beyond the purview of this Court." Turning to the agency's search, Howell found one of the disputed searches was adequate, while the other was not. She approved of the agency's search for records referred to in other records found by the agency. But she found the agency had not conducted an adequate search for records pertaining to search tools used by agency personnel to locate records. She observed that "the agency has provided no explanation of the fact that NSC's original request, which sought search materials from IMS�"a subcomponent of the Director's Area�"yielded more results than NSC's present, more broadly framed request for such materials from the entire Director's Area." Addressing the remaining exemption claims, Howell rejected NSC's contention that the existence of a CIA office in the World Trade Center had been publicly acknowledged by implication. She observed that "put simply, confronted with the agency's explicit disavowal of any formal disclosure, the plaintiffs' reliance on stray references in four documents prepared by sources outside the agency over the course of thirteen years is insufficient to demonstrate that the agency has in fact disclosed information it now seeks to withhold." She found the Office of the National Director of Intelligence had properly claimed Exemption 1 to protect classified information used in processing certain FOIA requests. She pointed out that "given that the withheld records would, by their very nature, include a detailed description of the nature of a particular FOIA action and the national security interests at play in each underlying FOIA request, it is not illogical that any non-exempt information included in these documents would not be reasonably segregable." Howell once again reminded the agency that the Exemption 3 (other statute) provision in the CIA Act was limited to records that would reveal information about agency personnel. Although the agency tried to couch its explanations in terms of how records related to personnel, Howell rejected those claims, noting that "for today, however, the agency's exclusive reliance on the CIA Act to withhold material that does not pertain to CIA personnel is misplaced." NSC questioned whether information contained in several decades-old in camera affidavits should remain classified. Considering the question, Howell noted that "the plaintiffs are certainly correct that information properly classified in the past is not necessarily properly classified today. Nonetheless, their suggestion that because the documents they seek may no longer be properly classified, those documents are automatically subject to public disclosure, misses the mark. In fact, even assuming that the declarations the plaintiffs seek are no longer classified, the agency has presented ample evidence to demonstrate that these documents were properly withheld under the National Security Act." Howell was skeptical about the agency's decision to withhold citations to publicly available articles originally attached to an agency employee's memorandum. The memorandum had originally been withheld in litigation, but was subsequently disclosed with minor redactions. The agency claimed disclosure of the public citations might be considered public acknowledgement of their contents. Finding the agency's argument ultimately unpersuasive, Howell noted that "the materials the plaintiffs seek are public, unconfirmed news reports of agency activities abroad." She added that "the agency offers little support for the proposition that the release of unconfirmed, publicly available media reports would, without more, reveal such information." By contrast, she found that disclosing information about why a former CIA employee's discrimination suit should be transferred risked harming national security. She noted that "in this context, there is little reason to doubt the agency's assertion that information withheld in these materials would reveal intelligence methods and activities." The agency had redacted information instructing employees to get approval when using certain template language when responding to a FOIA request, claiming it was protected by Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). Howell dismissed the claim, noting that "the line is most clearly understood as an instruction to obtain approval, directed to personnel processing those FOIA requests for which the template language contained in the document may be applicable. Thus, by redacting this information, the agency seeks to withhold general information regarding the manner in which FOIA requests are processed by the CIA. This it cannot do. Directions to deliberate do not themselves constitute deliberation. Such directions reflect agency protocol, not the 'advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations' protected by Exemption 5."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Adequacy - Search, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative

FOIA Project Annotation: Wrapping up the remaining issues in a suit brought by National Security Counselors against the CIA for records concerning its FOIA operations, Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that the agency conducted an adequate search and that it properly withheld eight documents under Exemption 3 (other statutes) and another one under Exemption 5 (privileges). Howell previously ordered the CIA to conduct a supplemental search, which located another ten documents. Finding the agency's supplemental search sufficient, Howell rejected NSC's argument that the agency had failed to explain how it knew what databases to search. Noting that "a search is not automatically rendered inadequate by an agency's failure to locate a specific document," Howell pointed out "the CIA explained that 'searching a shared drive or SharePoint site does not typically require an instruction manual, nor does a database that allows you to query (or search) using different fields.'" Howell found the CIA had properly withheld all or portions of eight documents under the National Security Act. She agreed with the agency's assertion that databases could qualify as methods and sources. She added that "similarly, classification markings are methods and sources because they help the CIA 'control the dissemination of intelligence-related information and protect it from unauthorized disclosure' by indicating 'the overall classification level, the presence of any compartmented information, and the limits on disseminating this information.' These descriptions adequately explain why withheld material falls within the scope of the National Security Act." The agency withheld a draft of a standard operating procedure document under the deliberative process privilege. NSC argued that the draft was not privileged because there was no final version of the document. But Howell pointed out that in National Security Archive v. CIA, 752 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2014), the D.C. Circuit had held that "there may be no final agency document because a draft died on the vine. But the draft is still a draft and thus still pre-decisional and deliberative."
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 4 Notice (Other) was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading using the correct event which is Summons Returned Executed. (rdj) (Entered: 03/01/2012)

2012-03-01

5

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 2/28/2012. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 3/29/2012.), RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 02/28/12., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY served on 2/29/2012 (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/01/2012)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 12 Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time. The defendants shall respond to the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by May 1, 2012. The Court further grants plaintiffs' 12 Motion for Clarification Regarding Upcoming Filing Deadline. The plaintiffs may file a response to the defendants' 11 Objection to Plaintiffs' Notice of Related Case by May 15, 2012. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 5, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/05/2012)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 15 Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Their Opposition to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. The plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss, and their response to the defendants' Objection to the Notice of Related Case, by May 22, 2012. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 7, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

2012-05-07

Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses to the Motion to Dismiss and Objection to the Notice of Related Case due by 5/22/2012 (gdf) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

ERRATA to Defendants' Proposed Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 28-2) by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 28 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION to Certify Class or, in the Alternative, for Pre-Certification Discovery MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION to Certify Class or, in the Alternative, for Pre-Certification Discovery filed by OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Thorp, Galen) (Entered: 06/14/2012)

2012-06-18

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 28 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time, Nunc Pro Tunc, to File Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 18, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification or, in the Alternative, for Pre-Certification Discovery by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, JEFFREY STEIN, MARK ZAID (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

2012-06-20

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 32 Plaintiffs' Consented-To Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification or, in The Alternative, for Pre-Certification Discovery. The plaintiffs' reply shall be filed by July 13, 2012. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 06/20/2012. (lcbah2) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 35 Plaintiff's Motion to File Supplemental Brief. The Court will accept the exhibit attached to that motion, ECF No. 35-1, as the plaintiff's submission of its supplemental brief. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 16, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/16/2012)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting in part and denying in part the 47 Plaintiffs' Motion to Set a Briefing Schedule for Remaining Counts. Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed within 30 days after the Court rules on the pending 14 Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. Oppositions shall be filed within 14 days of any dispositive motion, and replies shall be filed within 7 days of any opposition. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 28, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

2013-03-20

50

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 14 Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. The Motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Counts One, Five, Six, Fifteen, Nineteen, and Twenty-Five of the First Amended Complaint and the portion of Count Twenty-Six challenged by the Motion. The Motion is also DENIED IN PART as to Counts Twenty-One and Twenty-Two of the First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 20, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/20/2013)

Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule by PLAINTIFFS and by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thorp, Galen) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

2013-04-16

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting in part and denying in part the 53 Joint Motion for Revised Briefing Schedule. The plaintiffs shall file, by April 17, 2013, any motion for reconsideration of the Court's 50 Order and 51 Memorandum Opinion. The defendants shall file, by May 1, 2013, any opposition to any motion for reconsideration. The plaintiffs shall file, by May 13, 2013, any reply in further support of any motion for reconsideration. Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed within twenty (20) days after the Court rules on any motion for reconsideration. Oppositions shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of any dispositive motion, and replies shall be filed within seven (7) days of any opposition. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 16, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

2013-04-16

Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion for Reconsideration due by 4/17/2013; Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration due by 5/1/2013; Reply due by 5/13/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting nunc pro tunc 59 Plaintiffs' Motion for Brief Enlargement of Time to File Their Reply in Support of Their Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 14, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

2013-06-13

60

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 54 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Reconsideration. See Memorandum and Order for further details. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 13, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

2013-06-28

61

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thorp, Galen) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

2013-07-01

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 61 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment. Any dispositive motions shall be filed by July 17, 2013. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 1, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/01/2013)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 64 Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Their Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiffs shall file, by August 13, 2013, any opposition to the 63 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 31, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/31/2013)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting nunc pro tunc the 66 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The plaintiff shall file by August 20, 2013, any opposition to the 63 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 14, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/14/2013)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's 67 Motion to Stay. The plaintiff shall file, by August 23, 2013, any opposition to the defendant's 63 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 17, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/17/2013)

Joint MOTION to Stay Plaintiffs Opposition Brief by 30 Days by PLAINTIFFS and by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thorp, Galen) (Entered: 08/23/2013)

2013-08-23

ORDER granting joint 68 Motion to Stay Briefing. The plaintiff shall file, by September 23, 2013, any opposition to the defendants' 63 Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants shall file, by October 11, 2013, any reply to the plaintiff's opposition. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 23, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/23/2013)

2013-08-26

Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition to 63 Motion for Summary Judgment due by 9/23/2013. Reply due by 10/11/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 08/26/2013)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the joint 69 Motion to Stay. The plaintiff shall, by October 14, 2013, file any opposition to the defendant's 63 Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendant shall, by November 1, 2013, file any reply to the plaintiff's opposition. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 20, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/20/2013)

2013-09-20

Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/14/2013; Reply due by 11/1/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 09/20/2013)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendant's 70 Consent Motion For a Stay Of Summary Judgment Briefing In Light of Lapse Of Appropriations. The Court STAYS this matter until such time as funding is restored to the Department of Justice. The parties shall, within seven days of funding being restored, jointly file any appropriate motion to amend the schedule set forth in this Court's Minute Order of September 20, 2013. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 10, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/10/2013)

2013-10-10

Case Stayed. (tg, ) (Entered: 10/11/2013)

2013-10-24

71

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thorp, Galen) (Entered: 10/24/2013)

2013-10-24

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the parties' 71 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Briefing Schedule. The parties shall, by November 7, 2013, jointly file a proposed schedule for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 24, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/24/2013)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) LIFTING the stay in this matter entered October 10, 2013, GRANTING the parties' 72 Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule and DENYING the defendants' 63 Motion for Summary Judgment WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The defendants shall complete production of any revised documents and a revised Vaughn index by February 28, 2014. The plaintiffs shall, by March 14, 2014, notify the defendants of any withholdings they plan to contest. The defendants shall, by March 21, 2014, file any renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiffs shall, by April 14, 2014, file any opposition. The defendants shall, by April 30, 2014, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 8, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

2014-02-11

73

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Production and Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thorp, Galen) (Entered: 02/11/2014)

2014-02-11

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendants' 73 Consent Motion for Extension of Briefing Schedule and AMENDING the SCHEDULING ORDER of November 8, 2013 as follows: the defendants shall, by March 21, 2014, complete production of any revised documents and a revised Vaughn index. The plaintiffs shall, by April 11, 2014, notify the defendants of any withholdings they plan to contest. The defendants shall, by April 25, 2014, file any renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiffs shall, by May 12, 2014, file any opposition to the defendants' motion, consolidated with any cross-motion for summary judgment. The defendants shall, by May 28, 2014, file any reply in support of their motion for summary judgment consolidated with any opposition to the plaintiff's cross-motion. The plaintiffs shall, by June 9, 2014, file any reply to the defendants' opposition. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 11, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/11/2014)

2014-02-12

Set/Reset Deadlines: Production of revised documents and revised Vaughn Index due by 2/21/2014. Plaintiff's to notify Defendants of any withholdings they plan to contest by 4/11/2014. Renewed Summary Judgment motion due by 4/25/2014; Cross-Motion and Opposition to Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/12/2014; Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply to Opposition to Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/28/2014; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 6/9/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 02/12/2014)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING nunc pro tunc the plaintiff's 75 Unopposed Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule. The plaintiff shall submit, by May 15, 2014, any declarations requiring pre-publication review to Defendant CIA. Defendant CIA shall, on May 22, 2014, and every Wednesday thereafter until pre-publication review is complete, provide a status report to the Court detailing (1) the status of the review and (2) an estimated date of completion. The plaintiff shall, within two days of Defendant CIA's completion of all necessary pre-publication reviews, submit its opposition to the defendants' 74 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or any Cross-Motion. The defendants shall, by June 12, 2014 or twenty-one days after the submission of the plaintiff's opposition, whichever is later, file any reply and/or opposition to any Cross-Motion. The plaintiff shall, within fourteen days of the defendants' reply and/or opposition, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 13, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 05/13/2014)

2014-05-13

Set/Reset Deadlines: Submission of declarations requiring pre-publication review to Defendant CIA due by 5/15/2014. Defendant CIA's Status Reports to begin rolling by 5/22/2014. Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/12/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 05/13/2014)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING nunc pro tunc the plaintiffs' 79 Unopposed Nunc Pro Tunc Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule. The Court's Minute Order of May 13, 2014, is hereby AMENDED as follows: the defendants shall, by June 25, 2014, file any reply in support of their 74 Motion for Summary Judgment and opposition to the plaintiffs' 78 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiffs shall, by July 15, 2014, file any reply in support of their 78 Cross Motion. The plaintiffs' 78 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, filed this date, is deemed timely filed, in light of the defendants' consent as described in the plaintiffs' 79 Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 28, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 05/28/2014)

2014-05-28

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Opposition to Cross Motion and Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/25/2014; Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Cross Motion due by 7/15/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 05/28/2014)

2014-06-23

81

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thorp, Galen) (Entered: 06/23/2014)

2014-06-23

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendants' 81 Consent Motion for Extension of Briefing Schedule. The defendants shall, by July 2, 2014, submit any reply to the plaintiffs' 77 Opposition and/or opposition to the plaintiffs' 78 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiffs shall, by July 22, 2014, submit any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 23, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/23/2014)

2014-06-24

Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to 77 opposition and opposition to 78 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/2/2014; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 7/22/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 06/24/2014)

2014-06-30

82

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thorp, Galen) (Entered: 06/30/2014)

2014-06-30

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendants' 82 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. The defendants shall, by July 9, 2014, submit any reply in support of the defendants' 74 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or any opposition to the plaintiffs' 78 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiffs shall, by August 5, 2014, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 30, 2014. (lcbah3) (Entered: 06/30/2014)

2014-07-01

Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/9/2014 and Opposition to Cross-Motion; Reply to Opposition to Cross-Motion due by 8/5/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 07/01/2014)

2014-07-09

83

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thorp, Galen) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

2014-07-09

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendants' 83 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. The defendants shall, by July 11, 2014, submit any reply in support of the defendants' 74 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or any opposition to the plaintiffs' 78 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiffs shall, by August 5, 2014, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 9, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

2014-07-10

Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/11/2014; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 8/5/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 07/10/2014)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiffs' 86 Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Their Reply in Support of 78 Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The plaintiffs shall, by August 7, 2014, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 5, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

2014-08-06

Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply in Support of 78 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/7/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 08/06/2014)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING, nunc pro tunc , the plaintiffs' 88 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and For Enlargement of Time to File Said Sur-Reply. The Court deems the plaintiffs' sur-reply, filed August 9, 2014, timely filed. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 11, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/11/2014)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) STAYING this matter and DIRECTING the parties, by April 2, 2015, to submit jointly to the Court an updated status report and the following documents, in order to assist the Court in clarifying the remaining issues in dispute and to ensure that all outstanding issues between the parties in these related cases may be resolved finally in a complete manner: (1) a single, updated Vaughn index listing only those documents that remain in dispute in this matter or the related matters National Security Counselors v. CIA , Case No. 11-444 and/or National Security Counselors v. CIA , Case No. 11-445, regardless of the agency asserting exemptions regarding those documents; (2) a chart identifying, for each document that remains at issue in this matter or the related matters National Security Counselors v. CIA , Case No. 11-444 and/or National Security Counselors v. CIA , Case No. 11-445, (a) the updated single Vaughn Index number(s) of the document; (b) the Bates stamp number(s) of the document; (c) the FOIA request to which the document(s) is responsive; (d) the count in the operative Complaint or Amended Complaint to which the document(s) is responsive; (e) the exemptions being claimed and challenged for the responsive document(s); (f) the agency asserting the exemptions; and, if applicable, (g) the pages in the Federal Supplement publication of National Security Counselors v. CIA , 960 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2013), referencing the document(s), counts, and/or FOIA requests in dispute; (3) a summary of any other remaining disputes between the parties not otherwise identified in the foregoing documents. In addition to filing the aforementioned documents on the public docket, the parties shall, by April 2, 2015, email the aforementioned documents in a Microsoft Word or Excel compatible format (.doc,.docx,.xls, or.xlsx) to Howell_Chambers@dcd.uscourts.gov. Any document and/or claim not identified as in dispute in these supplemental filings, shall be deemed resolved and summary judgment granted to the defendants as conceded. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 16, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/16/2015)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) EXTENDING the stay in this matter in light of the parties' 95 Joint Status Report, wherein the plaintiff indicates that it will be filing two Rule 54(b) motions "within a week." 95 Joint Status Report at 2 n.1. Consequently, the stay in this matter is EXTENDED until such time as the plaintiff's Rule 54(b) Motions are fully briefed to allow for a comprehensive resolution of all outstanding claims. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 3, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the defendants to file in camera an unredacted copy of Document 565, described in the defendants' [95-1] Combined Vaughn Index and Chart, for the purpose of "creat[ing] a sufficient basis for making a decision" in the instant matter. See Hayden v. NSA , 608 F.2d 1381, 1384 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 31, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

2016-11-01

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) MODIFYING the Court's October 31, 2016 MINUTE ORDER as follows: The defendants shall file, by noon on November 3, 2016, in camera an unredacted copy of Document 565, described in the defendants' [95-1] Combined Vaughn Index and Chart, for the purpose of "creat[ing] a sufficient basis for making a decision" in the instant matter. See Hayden v. NSA , 608 F.2d 1381, 1384 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 1, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 11/01/2016)

2016-11-02

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' response to order of the Court due by noon on 11/3/2016. (tg) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

2016-11-03

97

NOTICE OF FILING Document for In Camera Review Pursuant to Court Order by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Thorp, Galen) (Entered: 11/03/2016)

2016-11-14

98

ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part the defendants' 74 Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING the plaintiffs' 78 Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The parties shall submit jointly, by November 28, 2016, a proposed schedule to the Court to govern further proceedings necessary to resolve this matter fully. See Order for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 14, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 11/14/2016)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) ISSUING the following scheduling order upon consideration of the parties' 100 Joint Proposed Schedule: The defendants shall, by February 3, 2017, provide an updated Vaughn index and declaration regarding Count Sixteen, along with any related documents; and the parties shall, by February 17, 2017, file a joint status report to the Court with a proposed schedule, if any, to govern further proceedings in the case. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 29, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 11/29/2016)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendants' 101 Consent Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Accordingly, the Court amends the SCHEDULING ORDER as follows: The defendants shall, by March 31, 2017, provide an updated Vaughn index and declaration regarding Count Sixteen, along with any related documents; and the parties shall, by April 14, 2017, file a joint status report to the Court with a proposed schedule, if any, to govern further proceedings in the case. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 31, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING nunc pro tunc the defendants' 102 Consent Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Accordingly, the Court amends the SCHEDULING ORDER as follows: The defendants shall, by April 7, 2017, provide an updated Vaughn index and declaration regarding Count Sixteen, along with any related documents; and the parties shall, by April 21, 2017, file a joint status report to the Court with a proposed schedule, if any, to govern further proceedings in the case. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 3, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

2017-04-03

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Updated Vaughn Index and declaration regarding Count Sixteen, along with any related documents due by 4/7/2017; Joint Status Report with a proposed schedule, if any, due by 4/21/2017. (tg) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING nunc pro tunc the parties' 103 Joint Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Accordingly, the parties shall, by April 28, 2017, file a joint status report to the Court with a proposed schedule, if any, to govern further proceedings in the case. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 24, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) ISSUING the following scheduling order to control the timing of proceedings in this matter, upon consideration of the parties' 104 Joint Status Report: The defendants shall, by May 31, 2017, file any motion for summary judgment on Count 16. The plaintiffs shall, by June 30, 2017, file any opposition to the defendants' motion, as well as any cross-motion for summary judgment. The defendants shall, by July 28, 2017, file any reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, as well as any opposition to any cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs shall, by August 25, 2017, file any reply in support of any cross-motion for summary judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 1, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 05/01/2017)

2017-05-01

Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motion on Count 16 due by 5/31/2017; Cross-Motion and Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/30/2017; Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/28/2017; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 8/25/2017. (tg) (Entered: 05/01/2017)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING nunc pro tunc the plaintiffs' 106 Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Their Opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on Count 16 and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the plaintiffs shall, by July 14, 2017, file any opposition to the defendants' motion, as well as any cross-motion for summary judgment. The defendants shall, by August 11, 2017, file any reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, as well as any opposition to any cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs shall, by September 8, 2017, file any reply in support of any cross-motion for summary judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 3, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

2017-07-05

Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross-Motion and Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/14/2017; Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/11/2017; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 9/8/2017. (tg) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING nunc pro tunc the plaintiffs' 109 Unopposed Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Their Opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on Count 16 and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Discovery. Accordingly, the Court deems the plaintiffs' opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment, filed July 20, 2017, timely filed. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 24, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

2017-08-17

111

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count 16 by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thorp, Galen) (Entered: 08/17/2017)

2017-08-17

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendants' 111 Consent Motion for Extension of Time and ISSUING the following SCHEDULING ORDER to control further proceedings in this case: (1) by August 25, 2017, the defendants shall file their reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment; and (2) by September 11, 2017, the plaintiff shall file its reply in support of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 17, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 08/17/2017)

2017-08-18

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion and Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/25/2017; plaintiff's Reply in support of its Cross Motion due by 9/11/2017. (tg) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiffs' 114 Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Discovery. Accordingly, the plaintiffs shall, by September 18, 2017, file their reply in support of the plaintiffs' 108 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 11, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

ORDER GRANTING the defendants' 105 Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on Count 16 and DENYING the plaintiffs' 108 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Discovery. See Order for further details. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 20, 2018. (lcbah4) (Entered: 08/20/2018)